Originally posted by Robtard
Doubt Hillary's going to get "smashed", she'll probably do even better now than she would have since the Republicans stuck a foot in their mouth about them using the Benghazi attack and deaths of American's as a political cudgel.Her numbers have apparently climbed a little since McCarthy's goof.
I said "trashed" not "smashed"
She's unlikely to get trashed either.
It's not like Hillary is a debate rookie, and it's not like any of these opponents are Obama. And, interestingly, due to all the negative coverage of her of late, it makes it much easier to exceed expectations. It's often ironically more difficult if one goes in with good press.
The funny thing here is that the third in the polls isn't present- since he's not in the ring! (Biden)
Originally posted by long pig
Do you really support that woman?
Well, in that post I was talking about likelyhoods and what I think will happen, rather than my personal preferences, but in short? Yes I do.
Her policies in terms of economics are much more closer to the successful ones of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama than any of her opponent's- Bernie, while he has some good ideas, also has some bad ones in respect to the Federal Reserve (which majorly assisted the recovery, something his changes would hamstring) and the bailout (the bank bailout was vitally important to our response to the economic crash, it played a key role in making it a great recession rather than Great Depression 2.0: Electric Boogaloo). The Republican economic policies have a proven history of slowing recoveries (see: Most of Europe who did austerity) and raising debt at the same time (see: Europe again, GWB's term, etc.). Supporting health care and social security- investing in our people- is a good thing, they're proven successful policies. I'll note Trump has decided to stick with social security and medicare too, one of the areas I give him a nod of making the right call.
Socially, she's reasonably solid on civil rights. Not the quickest to get there, and her Democratic competitors are normally around even, but beats the pants out of the Republicans with 'get rid of gay marriage,' the anti-hispanic pushes (which affect both immigrants who've lived here their whole lives, *and* hispanic citizens who've been here longer stuff), and similar.
It doesn't hurt that she's experienced and knows how to navigate government well, which, yes, is a skill, and it helps to have if one wants to get things done.
Also, on the scandals that are attached to her, many are blown out of proportion and serve mainly to convince people that already don't like her to feel good, but none are actually all that big, despite the attempts to try and blow them up. The e-mail server, for example, is improper procedure but involved no security breaches. Benghazi, beforehand she followed the standard policy of multiple prior administrations of both parties, and after there was some miscommunication by people under her but not involving her directly, etc.. Trying to paint her as this horrible figure- or even a Nixonian figure- doesn't work (sidenote: I'd take Nixon over the Republican field too).
Now, would I prefer someone without scandals like that? Definitely, without a doubt, it is a minus. But at the end of the day, "Solid policy, economics that work and good on social issues," beats out "gets embroiled in a lot of mid-level scandals."
She was disinvited.
Wow.
Sexism at its finest in the DNC.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She was disinvited and she's a hufe part of the DNC.
You know, Hillary doesn't actually decide who comes, and, from the article you linked-
The person close to the committee insisted: “She was not uninvited. The D.N.C. team wanted this first debate to have all the focus on the candidates. Gabbard’s people were told that if they couldn’t commit to that, since Tulsi was trying to publicly divide the D.N.C. leadership last week, then they should consider not coming.”
So there's conflicting reports on what happens. Gabbard also may be a part of the DNC, but she's not on stage.
You're doing that thing again where you say what you want to be true rather than what's actually happening.
There's definitely some argument going on here, and I'll be interesting to see how it develops, if it gets bigger, or if it gets quietly resolved backstage.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nice of you to ditch your boy Sanders and sell out to the women who finances her campaign on Saudi donations.
Again, pointing out that she's currently leading in the polls with her contemporaries and that she currently has a good chance of becoming POTUS is just a fact. A fact you need to prepare yourself for, because it could happen.
Would you claim I'm now a Trumper like you because I stated that Trump's still currently ahead in the polls despite his dip in the last three weeks? No, you would not.
Stating facts does not dictate political leanings, is what I am saying.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And you are doing that thing were you always find Hilldog guilt free.
Because there's no sign that she's actually involved in this?
Yes, I find her guilt-free of a lot of stuff she either didn't do or did not do what you say. It turns out that if you accuse someone of everything you can, you're going to be wrong 90%+ of the time. And often exaggerating much of the rest.
This time? Someone was asked to maybe not come to an event where Hillary does not have a say on who to invite or not invite.
Originally posted by Q99
Because there's no sign that she's actually involved in this?Yes, I find her guilt-free of a lot of stuff she either didn't do or did not do what you say. It turns out that if you accuse someone of everything you can, you're going to be wrong 90%+ of the time. And often exaggerating much of the rest.
This time? Someone was asked to maybe not come to an event where Hillary does not have a say on who to invite or not invite.